January 16, 1973

PRIVILEGE

MR. ROSE-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUMMER 73 YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM OUTSIDE HOUSE

NDP

Mark Willson Rose

New Democratic Party

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the announcement made yesterday by the Secretary of State having to do with an $85.4 million youth package called Summer 73.

I feel that my privileges as an elected member of the House have been infringed because the announcement of this new program, involving a huge expenditure, was not made in the House. It was made to the press outside the House before any member possessed any information at all as to the scope and thrust of the program. This somewhat unparliamentary procedure on the part of the Secretary of State interfered with the privileges of hon. members inasmuch as by his action he effectively denied those who are interested in following the program the opportunity to make observations and comments in the House.

I call upon the Secretary of State to desist from this practice of issuing press releases on such occasions and to correct his initial insensitivity to the rights of parliament by making a statement on motions today, fully explaining to the House the nature of the program, Summer 73.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. ROSE-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUMMER 73 YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM OUTSIDE HOUSE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. ROSE-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUMMER 73 YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM OUTSIDE HOUSE
Permalink
PC

Paul Theodore Hellyer

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hellyer:

A shocking affront to parliament.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. ROSE-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUMMER 73 YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM OUTSIDE HOUSE
Permalink
LIB

James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State of Canada)

Liberal

Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):

Mr. Speaker, I note that the member for Trinity smiled when he made that remark. Perhaps I might comment briefly on what was said by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. It seems Your Honour is not likely to rule that there is a question of privilege here, but there may be a question of propriety which I should like to clarify. I considered very carefully whether or not I should announce this program in a statement on motions. I would remind hon. members that this is the third year in which this program has been pursued and that no substantial changes have been made. Essentially, it is the same mix as in previous years. In these circumstances, I proceeded by way of an announcement.

The hon. member says he was not given notice. I went out of my way to provide him with notice two and a half hours before meeting with the press. At about 12.30 p.m. the documents were in his office, and at roughly the same time they were in the offices of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi and of the spokesman for the Social Credit party in order that the spokesmen for all the political parties might have a chance to comment. There was no attempt made to affront parliament The rationale was that this was the third year in which this program has

been introduced and I felt that a statement on motions was not justified.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. ROSE-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUMMER 73 YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM OUTSIDE HOUSE
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

And the third year the announcement was made outside the House.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. ROSE-ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUMMER 73 YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM OUTSIDE HOUSE
Permalink

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

WATER RESOURCES

LIB

Donald Stovel Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources)

Liberal

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to lay on the table the annual report of the Permanent Engineering Board under the Columbia River Treaty.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   WATER RESOURCES
Sub-subtopic:   TABLING OF ANNUAL REPORT OF PERMANENT ENGINEERING BOARD UNDER COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY
Permalink

FISHERIES

NDP

Frank Howard

New Democratic Party

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):

Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the steady increase, one which has reached fantastic proportions, of the species of fish called dogfish off the west coast. If unanimous consent is given I would ask that we not engage in a debate on this motion, so we would not be cutting into the time otherwise available to hon. members to debate other matters.

The motion I seek to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) is as follows:

This House expresses its concern about the exceptionally large schools of dogfish in waters off the west coast and in an effort to control this predator and enhance the position of commercial fishermen we urge the establishment of an immediate dogfish control program implemented in consultation with all segments of the B.C. fishing industry.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   FISHERIES
Sub-subtopic:   DOGFISH DEPREDATIONS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena. This motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   FISHERIES
Sub-subtopic:   DOGFISH DEPREDATIONS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   FISHERIES
Sub-subtopic:   DOGFISH DEPREDATIONS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

No.

326

January 16, 1973

Oral Questions

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   FISHERIES
Sub-subtopic:   DOGFISH DEPREDATIONS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

There is not unanimity. Therefore the motion cannot be put.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   FISHERIES
Sub-subtopic:   DOGFISH DEPREDATIONS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Permalink
NDP

Frank Howard

New Democratic Party

Mr. Howard:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I heard the "no" as well as you did. It was very faint and it was from that quarter. Inasmuch as the Minister of the Environment who deals with these matters is not in the House at the moment I wonder whether we might not allow the question to stand and raise it again tomorrow in order that we may have the benefit of his views.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   FISHERIES
Sub-subtopic:   DOGFISH DEPREDATIONS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

There is nothing in the rules to prevent the hon. member raising the question again tomorrow. I might add that the rules do not allow for a distinction between loud "noes" and faint "noes".

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   FISHERIES
Sub-subtopic:   DOGFISH DEPREDATIONS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Permalink

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

January 16, 1973